Allowed

Asjad and Others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024WRIB/642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and set aside a Revenue Board's order dismissing an appeal on the ground that it lacked substantial questions of law. It held that the petitioner must be granted an opportunity to amend the memo of appeal before dismissal is permitted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.03.2024 dismissing the Second Appeal is set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the Board of Revenue to amend the memo and admit the appeal.

Asjad and Others vs Board of Revenue, U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45163

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 642 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Asjad And Others Respondent :- Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4.

¶7

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue at Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 833 of 2024 whereby the appeal has been dismissed solely on the ground that no substantial questions of law was proposed in the memo of appeal.

¶8

The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if at all the memo of appeal did not have the substantial questions of law, the Court ought to have provided some opportunity to the petitioners to either amend the memo of appeal or to file afresh, however, without looking into the same, it dismissed the appeal on the issue of maintainability which is not appropriate.

¶9

It is further urged that even otherwise if during arguments, the court found that there were certain substantial questions in that case also the court ought to have framed the same on its own. The defect in the memo of appeal was not substantial for it to be dismissed, at least, without first providing an opportunity to amend and in such circumstances, a valuable right of the petitioners has been lost which has caused irreparable injury.

¶10

Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that it was the duty of the petitioners who were the appellants before the Board of Revenue to have framed the appeal in the manner as provided under Order 41 C.P.C.

¶11

It is urged that once the said compliance was not made, the Court had no option but to reject it and in such circumstances, the order prima facie does not appear to be incorrect which may require interference of the Court.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter as well as the fact that the contesting parties are state-respondents and in such circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call for the counter affidavit from the State to keep the matter pending rather with the consent of parties, the petition is being disposed at the admission stage itself.

¶13

The issue involved is a short question, inasmuch as, the Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the grounds and substantial questions of law has not been mentioned in the memo of appeal. A copy of the memo of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure No. 10.

¶14

Having noticed the said memo of appeal, it appears that the petitioner has merely narrated the facts but the grounds upon which the appeal is to be pressed has not been mentioned.

¶15

Noticing the provisions of Order 41 read with Section 100 C.P.C., it was the duty of the petitioners to have framed the grounds which led to the substantial questions of law involved in the appeal.

¶16

Though, the grounds and proposed questions of law are conspicuously missing from the memo of appeal but the record does not reflect that any opportunity was granted to the petitioner to correct or amend the memo of appeal. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that ends of justice can be met by setting aside the order dated 19.03.2024. The petitioners shall appear before the Board of Revenue on 29th July, 2024 and prior thereto, he shall move an appropriate application to amend the memo of appeal incorporating the grounds and questions of law along with the copy of this order.

¶17

Once, the said application is moved, the court concerned shall consider the appeal for the purposes of admission within a period of two weeks from 29th July, 2024.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Second Appeal No. 833 of 2024 by the Board of Revenue shall stand set aside.

¶19

It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any expression on merits and the Board of Revenue shall consider the appeal on its own merit. Costs are made easy.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Asheesh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Asjad and Others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asjad and Others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sobhaee vs District Magistrate / Collector / Distt. Deputy Director of Consolidation Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Shri Asik Ali and 5 Others vs Shri Shridhar and 10 Others

Raja Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Mohokha Devi and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko Thru. Secy. and Others

Smt. Sarla Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Energy, Lucknow and Others

Aayushi Jain vs Director General, U.P. Medical Education and Training Thru. Director General, Lko.